PC 72-196~
~
RESOLU;ION N0. PC72-196
A RESOLUTION OF TKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSI410 r~E CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. HE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Ptannine Commis~lon ot the City of Mehcim did teceive e vedfied Petition fot Vedencc from
STANDARD OIL OF CALIFORNIA, Yost Office Box 31, Long Beach, California 90801, Owner; AMERICAN
PERMIT SERVICE, Post Gffice Box 364, la Puente, California 91747, Agent of certain real prop-
erty situated in the City o€ Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described ae ThaC
portion of Rencho San Juan Ca;on de Santa Ana, described ae followe: The [Jesterly 190 feet of
the Southerly 200 feEt of the Southwest Oae-Quarter of the Southweet One-Quaxter o£ the South-
wesY One-Quarter of Section 5, Townehip 4 South, Range 10 Weet, S.B.B. & M., EXCEPTING therefrom
Chat portion thereo£ described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Southerly line of said
land distant 190 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Northerly along the Easterly
line of eaid land 160 feet to the true point of beginniag; thence Northerly along eaid Easterly
line 40 feet; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of eaid land 40 feet; thence Southeastei•-
ly in a direct line to the true point of beginning, SUBJECT to easements of record for public
roed purpoees over the Southerly 50 feet end the Westerly 40 feet of said land ; and
WHEREAS, the Clty PlanninQ C~mmis~ion did hold a public heezing at the City Hell in the City of Anaheim on
August 21, 1972, at 2:00 a'clock P.M., nodce of srld public headng heving beee duly Qiven as tequiced by
lew and !n ecoo~rnce wlth t1~e pmv±sione oE the Mahetm Munlcipel Code, Chepter 18.68, ta heer and conelder evldence for
and a~alnet sold proposud varlnnce and to investlQate and mnke finding's and recommmdetions in connection theseaith;
end
WHEREAS, t~id' Commlesion, aEtet due iaspection, inVesUeatlon, end study mede by itself end in its behalt,
end after due consida~tion oE oll evidence and t~patts offerad at seid headng, does find end determine the tollowine
EeMe:
1. That the petitioner requesta variances from the Anaheim Municipal Code
as follows:
a. SECTION 18'.62.090fB-1) - Mini~num distance hetween free-standing siguti.
(300 feet required; 60 feet proposed)
b. SECTION 18.62.090(B-1) - Maxim~xm number of free-standing signs.
(3 proposed; 1 permitted)
c. SECTION 18.62.090(B-5) - Minimum distance to a property line.
(60 feet required; 40 feet proposed)
d. SECTION 18.62.090(e-2) - Minimum sign heiqht.
(B feet required; 6~i feet proposed)
2. That signing as proposed is far in excess of signing permitted within
the Sign Ordinance, and to qrant aubject petition, would 'ne establish-
ing an undesirable precedent wherein every other se:rvice station in
Anaheim could request similar signing.
3. That the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a aimilaz
request with a finding that approval woul.d establish a precedent
for mass signing of other service stations throughout the city, and
no changes have occurred to warrant favorabl. consideration of this
petition.
Vl-D -1-
- s •
4. That the petitioner is proposing to increase the number of signs on
these service station sites from four to eight times that permitted
by Cade, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a privilege
not enjoyad by other commercial and industrial developments throug~-
out the city.
5. That there are no exceptional or extraordinar9 circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended
use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or
class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
6. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property
in qu=stion.
7. That the requested variance will be materially de*_rimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is l.acated.
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Plenning Commiseion does hareby deny aubject
Petltion for Varienee on the beals uf the eEorementioned flndirtge.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end epproved by me thie 31st day of Auguet, 1972.
9
~
RMAN ANANEIM CITY PL G COMMIS
ATTEST:
~
SECRETARY ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNT'Y OF ORANGE ) es.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Anrt, ~6eb~'~~~. Secretery of the City Planning Commiaston oE the City of Aeahelm, do hereby cedify that the Eota
going resolution wes paesed end edopted et e meeting oE the City Planning Commisefon oEthe City oE Anaheim, held on
Auguet 21, 1972, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., tY ~e Collowing vote of the membero theceof:
p~~~; C(?Aq~§SIONERS: FARANO~ GAUER~ HERBST, KAYWOOD, SEYMGUR.
'~~~ G'~NI~NI95IONERS: NONE.
`:4~S~~:N"1~: COML~SSIQry~(£R5: ALLRED~ ROWLAND.
IDj ~'C['`'"=~ lNNiER~~~, [j }~evrtnmrounto set my hend thie 31st day of August~ 1972.
RESGLUTIODI NO. PC72-196
~iyriYi/ ~~~ZC~G~f/ -
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~Z_D _Z.